Why Debian is different to other distros

The Linux distribution landscape has long been divided along technical lines -- DEB versus RPM package formats, systemd versus alternative init systems, rolling versus fixed release cycles. However, the most consequential difference between distributions may not be technical at all. It is the governance model: community-driven versus corporate-governed. Debian stands as the most prominent example of a major Linux distribution that is governed entirely by its community, and this distinction has profound implications for its users.

Debian, first released in 1993, is guided by the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Its development priorities, release schedules, and technical decisions are made by elected leaders and community consensus rather than by corporate executives. The Debian Project Leader is elected annually by Debian developers, and major decisions are subject to general resolutions voted on by the community. This governance model ensures that Debian's direction is determined by the people who build and use it, not by the business strategy of a parent company.

Contrast this with distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Fedora. While Fedora is a community project, it is sponsored and heavily influenced by Red Hat (now a subsidiary of IBM). Red Hat's decisions are ultimately driven by business considerations -- which is entirely legitimate for a commercial enterprise. However, this dynamic can create friction when corporate interests diverge from community interests. The 2023 decision by Red Hat to restrict access to RHEL source code, effectively disrupting downstream rebuilds like CentOS and Rocky Linux, illustrated how corporate governance can abruptly change the rules for an entire ecosystem of users and derivative projects.

Debian's independence means it has no single corporate entity that could make such unilateral decisions. Debian does receive funding from various organizations and companies, which is essential for infrastructure and events, but no sponsor gains governance authority over the project. This structural independence is why Debian has remained remarkably consistent in its principles over more than three decades, even as the corporate Linux landscape has shifted dramatically through acquisitions, mergers, and strategy changes.

The practical benefits of this independence are tangible. Debian supports a vast range of architectures, from x86 and ARM to RISC-V and others, because its community decides that broad hardware support matters -- not because a business case justifies it. Debian's commitment to free software is enforced by its social contract rather than by a marketing department. Its release cycle prioritizes stability and quality over market timing.

This is not to say that corporate-backed distributions are inferior. RHEL offers excellent enterprise support, certification programs, and a polished experience that many businesses rightly depend on. SUSE, Canonical's Ubuntu, and other commercially backed distributions each bring valuable contributions to the Linux ecosystem. The point is simply that the governance model shapes the distribution's character, priorities, and long-term trajectory. For users who value independence from any single company's agenda, who want assurance that their operating system's direction will not shift due to an acquisition or a change in corporate strategy, Debian's community governance model offers something that no corporate-backed distribution can: structural independence by design. In an era when a handful of technology conglomerates exert growing influence over the tools people depend on daily, choosing a community-governed operating system is one of the most concrete steps an individual or organization can take to preserve their digital autonomy.

Fedora, CentOS, FreeBSD, RedHad, Oracle, Alpine